JUDGMENT The controversy in the present Rule lies within a very narrow compass. The petitioner is a member of a Co-operative Society known as the Burdwan Zonal Co-operative Multipurpose and Marketing Society Limited which is registered under the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. A notice was issued on the 20th April, 1970 stating that the 14th Annual General Meeting of the Society will be held on the 17th May, 1970. According to the petitioner, the place of the meeting was fixed at an agricultural farm belonging to the Society which was not the Registered Office of the Society. According to the petitioner, this was contrary to law. Accordingly, the petitioner raised a dispute contesting the election which was referred to an Arbitrator under the appropriate provisions of the Act. The Arbitrator upheld the contentions of the petitioner and held that the General Meeting was void. From that, an appeal was taken by one of the Directors of the Society. The appeal was heard by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Burdwan and was dismissed on the 2nd July, 1971. 3. Being aggrieved by the Appellate Order, the Secretary of the Society and one Aloke Nath Mukherjee, a Director of the Society filed a petition for review under Section 135 (1) of the Act. 4. By an order which is Annexure 'D' to the petition and is dated the 7th July, 1972, the review petition was allowed and the appellate order was cancelled. 5. It is this order passed in review that is challenged before me in this application. 6. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the order on a very short ground. In order to appreciate the ground, it would be useful to set out Section 135 of the Act which is in the following terms :– "135. (1) The State Government may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or the proceedings of the Registrar or any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit. (1) The State Government may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or the proceedings of the Registrar or any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit. (2) The Registrar may at any time– (a) revise any order passed by himself ; or (b) call for and examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or the proceedings of any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, and if it appears to him that any decision, order or award or any proceedings so called for should for any reason be modified, annulled or reversed, may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit : Provided that, before any order is made under clause (a) or (b), the Registrar shall afford to any person, likely to be affected adversely by such order, an opportunity of being heard. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall apply to any proceeding in which an appeal lies to the Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 133A." It was submitted on the strength of Section 135 (3) of the Act that where an appeal lies to the Tribunal, review under Section 135 (1) is not maintainable. My attention was drawn to the Fourth Schedule to the Act, Item 7 whereof provides that an appeal from any order, decision or award of the Registrar or an Arbitrator lies to the Tribunal. Until such a Tribunal is constituted, a dichotomy of appellate authorities is provided for in the Fourth Schedule. If the order is passed by the Registrar an appeal lies to the State Government. If it is passed by any other authority, the appeal lies to the Registrar. Mr. Biswas fairly pointed out that, on the date when the review order was passed in the present case, there was no Tribunal constituted by the State Government. Consequently, since the original order was passed by the Arbitrator, the appeal was heard by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies who is empowered to discharge the functions of the Registrar. He however contended that according to the appropriate provisions of the Act, all appeals from the order of any authority would lie to the Tribunal. Consequently, since the original order was passed by the Arbitrator, the appeal was heard by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies who is empowered to discharge the functions of the Registrar. He however contended that according to the appropriate provisions of the Act, all appeals from the order of any authority would lie to the Tribunal. The fact that no Tribunal was constituted by the State Government at the relevant time was a purely fortutious circumstance. 7. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents did not contest the proposition that under the appropriate provisions of the Act an appeal from any order would lie to the Tribunal. He further stated that since the Tribunal has now been constituted all appeals are heard by it. 8. That being so, the contention of Mr. Biswas, in my view, is sound and should be accepted. As Mr. Biswas pointed out, Section 135 really contains the power of the State Government to review orders suo motu. This is in contrast to the provisions of Section 133A of the Act, sub-section (4) whereof provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the order. 9. Since it was not disputed that an appeal lay from the original order passed in this case to the Tribunal had the Tribunal been constituted at the material time, it must be held that in view of Section 135(3) of the Act, the review application on which the impugned order was made was not maintainable. 10. In the result, this application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. There will be a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed in review dated the 7th July, 1972 and a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to for bear from giving effect to that order in any manner whatsoever. There will be no order as to costs.